Shocking and disturbing

I've mentioned this one before; in the US, in an apartment building, there was a woman in the hall who lived in one of the apartments. Another woman opened her apartment door, and her dog got out, attacked her neighbour, killing her. The dog owner was charged and convicted of 2nd degree murder. I'll never forget the look on her face as the verdict was announced.

I've mentioned this one before; in the US, in an apartment building, there was a woman in the hall who lived in one of the apartments. Another woman opened her apartment door, and her dog got out, attacked her neighbour, killing her. The dog owner was charged and convicted of 2nd degree murder. I'll never forget the look on her face as the verdict was announced.

[quote]At what point does the owner have responsibility for not properly securing his dog?[/quote]
The dog was in the car and under normal circumstances that would have been just fine.
That responsibility fell to the police, they saw he had a dog, they would have seen the open car window, they police should have made sure the dog was secured before even attempting to make the arrest.

Quote:At what point does the owner have responsibility for not properly securing his dog?

The dog was in the car and under normal circumstances that would have been just fine.

That responsibility fell to the police, they saw he had a dog, they would have seen the open car window, they police should have made sure the dog was secured before even attempting to make the arrest.

Let's follow this through.
The guy was in a public place and had his dog on a lead as is normal practice. He put the dog in the car where the windows offer no barrier to the dog getting out and he does nothing to secure the dog. The dog is effectively free (like walking it without the lead) - in what way is that 'just fine'? It is not the police's responsibility to make sure the dog is secure. When they arrest someone I am sure that they are not thinking 'is the dog secure' having seen him put it in the car.
The logic of this is that some thug mugs an old lady and the police turn up. He has an aggressive dog and he refuses to tie the dog so the police 'let him go' because they can't arrest him until he does.
This is obviously an irreconcilable difference so I am not sure much else can be said.

Let's follow this through.
The guy was in a public place and had his dog on a lead as is normal practice. He put the dog in the car where the windows offer no barrier to the dog getting out and he does nothing to secure the dog. The dog is effectively free (like walking it without the lead) - in what way is that 'just fine'? It is not the police's responsibility to make sure the dog is secure. When they arrest someone I am sure that they are not thinking 'is the dog secure' having seen him put it in the car.

The logic of this is that some thug mugs an old lady and the police turn up. He has an aggressive dog and he refuses to tie the dog so the police 'let him go' because they can't arrest him until he does.

This is obviously an irreconcilable difference so I am not sure much else can be said.

[quote]The logic of this is that some thug mugs an old lady and the police turn up. He has an aggressive dog and he refuses to tie the dog so the police 'let him go' because they can't arrest him until he does[/quote]
You logic is somewhat twisted :)

Quote:The logic of this is that some thug mugs an old lady and the police turn up. He has an aggressive dog and he refuses to tie the dog so the police 'let him go' because they can't arrest him until he does

[quote]
The logic of this is that some thug mugs an old lady and the police turn up. He has an aggressive dog and he refuses to tie the dog so the police 'let him go' because they can't arrest him until he does. [/quote]
Wouldn't this be the correct course of action under Health & Safety law?

Quote:

The logic of this is that some thug mugs an old lady and the police turn up. He has an aggressive dog and he refuses to tie the dog so the police 'let him go' because they can't arrest him until he does.

Wouldn't this be the correct course of action under Health & Safety law?

LOL, Paul Morgan, you are priceless .. I dont think for one second you believe your last few comments lol .. honestly, I really dont. You backed the wrong horse, its dead and youre now flogging it ;o) Its the owners responsibility to secure his dog. You can micro analyse every bit of the police action for some small errors in judgment or perhaps how, in hindsight, things could have gone better BUT they didnt know his dog hadnt been tethered in the car, they didnt know it would come and attack or be able to, just like they dont know if any person they stop is armed and by tackling a man armed with a gun they may have to shoot him, or if he is accompanied by others and by tackling him they will cause others to get involved and escalate the situation ... blah blah blah ... they simply arrested a man who had just put his dog away into the car. Nobody asked the man to pitch up right next to an armed siege with canine units there .. nobody asked him to get too close with a dog and his music blaring out, nobody asked him to continually gob off at officers in a dangerous situation and refuse to leave despite being repeatedly told to do so, nobody asked him to put his dog away but leave it unsecured, nobody asked him to get into a struggle with the police and for him to shout as the dog attacked, thus making his own dog even more aggressive, nobody else owned that dog or caused the scenario apart from the man BUT his dog died in a horrible fashion. Im very sad for the dog and the officer that had to shoot the dog to avoid being mauled by a large aggressive animal but there is only one responsible person here and it isnt anyone in police uniform this time, as much as you may like it to be.

LOL, Paul Morgan, you are priceless .. I dont think for one second you believe your last few comments lol .. honestly, I really dont. You backed the wrong horse, its dead and youre now flogging it ;o) Its the owners responsibility to secure his dog. You can micro analyse every bit of the police action for some small errors in judgment or perhaps how, in hindsight, things could have gone better BUT they didnt know his dog hadnt been tethered in the car, they didnt know it would come and attack or be able to, just like they dont know if any person they stop is armed and by tackling a man armed with a gun they may have to shoot him, or if he is accompanied by others and by tackling him they will cause others to get involved and escalate the situation ... blah blah blah ... they simply arrested a man who had just put his dog away into the car. Nobody asked the man to pitch up right next to an armed siege with canine units there .. nobody asked him to get too close with a dog and his music blaring out, nobody asked him to continually gob off at officers in a dangerous situation and refuse to leave despite being repeatedly told to do so, nobody asked him to put his dog away but leave it unsecured, nobody asked him to get into a struggle with the police and for him to shout as the dog attacked, thus making his own dog even more aggressive, nobody else owned that dog or caused the scenario apart from the man BUT his dog died in a horrible fashion. Im very sad for the dog and the officer that had to shoot the dog to avoid being mauled by a large aggressive animal but there is only one responsible person here and it isnt anyone in police uniform this time, as much as you may like it to be.

Isn't it the responsibility of the dog owner to have their dog under control at all times? Here, this also applies to off-leash recreational areas for dogs. Otherwise an out of control dog can attack and injure, or worse, people and other dogs that have just as much right to be there. Does that make sense? Imo, a very high percentage of the problems with dogs, or other pets, rests on the shoulders of irresponsible owners.

Isn't it the responsibility of the dog owner to have their dog under control at all times? Here, this also applies to off-leash recreational areas for dogs. Otherwise an out of control dog can attack and injure, or worse, people and other dogs that have just as much right to be there. Does that make sense? Imo, a very high percentage of the problems with dogs, or other pets, rests on the shoulders of irresponsible owners.

Logic should suggest that the dog owner should not have put his dog in that position, If I was a conspiracy theorist I could argue that the man knew exactly what he was doing - probably didnt expect the outcome though - or did he?
I feel sorry for the dog, but it was not the policemans fault, dog owner should have got back in his car and gone somewhere else to walk his dog if thats what he was his actual intention for that half hour, doesnt look like it to me though. I'm not surprised its gone viral with the spin thats been put on it.

Logic should suggest that the dog owner should not have put his dog in that position, If I was a conspiracy theorist I could argue that the man knew exactly what he was doing - probably didnt expect the outcome though - or did he?

I feel sorry for the dog, but it was not the policemans fault, dog owner should have got back in his car and gone somewhere else to walk his dog if thats what he was his actual intention for that half hour, doesnt look like it to me though. I'm not surprised its gone viral with the spin thats been put on it.

[Quote]Both the police and the dog owner handled the situation badly.[/quote]
No they didn't both handle the situation badly.
Every bit of the man's actions suggested he expected and encouraged conflict and took this situation to the police and the siege unnecessarily. He made a catalogue of numerous bad decisions that precipitated the terrible outcome. The only thing the police didnt do was minutely and accurately analyse, at the brief window of opportunity, every possible outcome, which is an unrealistic expectation for even the most highly trained person. Sadly for everyone the idiot's efforts resulted in a tragic outcome and despite however many numerous, ridiculous, bad decisions he made along his timeline toward the incident, people will micro-analyse the incident to find one single thing the police could have done differently with the benefit of hindsight and pin this on the police as their fault or try to share blame. Thankfully enough people here can see who was at fault.
Unfortunately nobody wins as it is negative press for the police, a police officer has to deal with the trauma of shooting a dog at close range after being attacked, a man is arrested, a dog loses its life, and a dangerous situation is interfered with at the risk of further injury or loss of life ..... All because of a stupid man.

[Quote]Both the police and the dog owner handled the situation badly.

No they didn't both handle the situation badly.

Every bit of the man's actions suggested he expected and encouraged conflict and took this situation to the police and the siege unnecessarily. He made a catalogue of numerous bad decisions that precipitated the terrible outcome. The only thing the police didnt do was minutely and accurately analyse, at the brief window of opportunity, every possible outcome, which is an unrealistic expectation for even the most highly trained person. Sadly for everyone the idiot's efforts resulted in a tragic outcome and despite however many numerous, ridiculous, bad decisions he made along his timeline toward the incident, people will micro-analyse the incident to find one single thing the police could have done differently with the benefit of hindsight and pin this on the police as their fault or try to share blame. Thankfully enough people here can see who was at fault.

Unfortunately nobody wins as it is negative press for the police, a police officer has to deal with the trauma of shooting a dog at close range after being attacked, a man is arrested, a dog loses its life, and a dangerous situation is interfered with at the risk of further injury or loss of life ..... All because of a stupid man.